US politics: just for you

[LongRider]

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Wash your mouth out, the VP seat is Kari Lake's, and no other!

Not Kair, MTG!   Is there a cage match in their future?  Can you imagine Trump with a female VP?  Good god, brutal. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by LongRider

[Martell Spy]

Tuberville refuses to denounce White nationalism in military, doubles down on past comments

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/politics/tommy-tuberville-white-nationalism-cnntv/index.html

Quote

 

Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama on Monday doubled down on his comments on White nationalism, saying it was an “opinion” that White nationalists are racist.

During an interview on CNN’s “The Source with Kaitlan Collins,” Tuberville repeatedly defended his previous comments. When Collins stated the definition of a White nationalist is someone who believes that the White race is superior to other races, Tuberville said, “Well, that’s some people’s opinion.”

When asked what his opinion was, Tuberville said, “My opinion of a White nationalist, if someone wants to call them White nationalist, to me is an American.”

Speaking on an individual level, Tuberville added, “If people think a White nationalist is a racist, I agree with that.”

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

51 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Tuberville refuses to denounce White nationalism in military, doubles down on past comments

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/politics/tommy-tuberville-white-nationalism-cnntv/index.html

 

I'm sure he really cares about all his former black players though...

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm sure he really cares about all his former black players though...

I'm not sure if he's capable of that. Honestly I think he has gravel in the place of brains. And the reporters know this guy is an easy story. It's really distressing that he's a senator. It might be better if Trump really had put a horse into the Senate.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Martell Spy

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

I'm not sure if he's capable of that. Honestly I think he has gravel in the place of brains. And the reporters know this guy is an easy story. It's really distressing that he's a senator. It might be better if Trump really had put a horse into the Senate.

It was a joke. He built his career by exploiting black kids while being allowed to be a tyrant over them. Of course he doesn't have an issue with white nationalism. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

7 hours ago, LongRider said:

Not Kair, MTG!   Is there a cage match in their future?  Can you imagine Trump with a female VP?  Good god, brutal. 

Trump picking a female runningmate will be the only political process to involve a swimsuit competition, well maybe not in Florida. 

[Zorral]

DOJ Appeals Oath Keepers Sentences As Too Light

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/doj-appeals-oath-keepers-sentences

Quote

 

In a highly unusual move, the Justice Department is planning to appeal several of the sentences meted out to Oath Keepers for their Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy convictions, including founder Stewart Rhodes, who was put away for 18 years, not the 25 years prosecutors sought.

The Justice Department rarely appeals the duration of sentences, for a mix of reasons, among them: most federal criminal cases are resolved by plea bargain, the sentencing guidelines don’t afford judges a ton of sentencing discretion but what discretion they do have isn’t easily second guessed, and the chances of winning on appeal aren’t great.

To the extent DOJ does appeal sentences rendered by trial courts, it’s usually on technical grounds. These latest appeals, in contrast, seem to be focused on the sentences not being long enough, despite the Oath Keepers sentences being among the longest handed down for the Jan. 6 attack.

It’s really an extraordinary move, definitely the biggest news of the day yesterday. But until we see the appeal itself and the arguments the Justice Department is making, there isn’t a whole lot to say about it. Still, former Alabama U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance makes an interesting, even tantalizing, point: “Strong sign DOJ wants clear precedent for long sentences for those even more responsible for the insurrection that the Oath Keepers.” ....

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Democrats Try a Novel Tactic to Revive the Equal Rights Amendment
Proponents of the measure to enshrine a guarantee of sex equality into the Constitution are using a creative legal theory to try to resurrect the long-stalled amendment.

"Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative Cori Bush are set to introduce a joint resolution stating that the Equal Rights Amendment has already been ratified."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/us/politics/democrats-equal-rights-amendment.html

Quote

 

Democrats in Congress are making a fresh push for the nearly century-old Equal Rights Amendment to be enshrined in the Constitution, rallying around a creative legal theory in a bid to revive an amendment that would explicitly guarantee sex equality as a way to protect reproductive rights in post-Roe America.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Representative Cori Bush of Missouri are set to introduce a joint resolution on Thursday stating that the measure has already been ratified and is enforceable as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. The resolution states that the national archivist, who is responsible for the certification and publication of constitutional amendments, must immediately do so.

It is a novel tactic for pursuing a measure that was first proposed in Congress 100 years ago and was approved by Congress about 50 years later but not ratified in time to be added to the Constitution. Proponents say the amendment has taken on new significance after the Supreme Court’s ruling last year in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned the abortion rights long guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.

“In light of Dobbs, we’re seeing vast discrimination across the country,” Ms. Gillibrand said in an interview. “Women are being treated as second-class citizens. This is more timely than ever.”

While almost 80 percent of Americans supported adding the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution in a 2020 Pew Research Center poll, there is little chance that the effort will draw the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate. But the Democrats’ push is their latest effort to spotlight G.O.P. opposition to social policy measures with broad voter approval, and to call attention to the party’s hostility to abortion rights, which hurt Republicans in the midterm elections.

“This is a political rather than a legal struggle,” said Laurence Tribe, the constitutional scholar and professor emeritus at Harvard Law School. “It would succeed only in a different environment than we have. It’s not going to pass. The real question is what political message is being sent. In a political environment like this, you throw at the wall whatever you can.”

This is Democrats’ second attempt this year to advance the Equal Rights Amendment; in April, Senate Republicans blocked a similar resolution that sought to remove an expired deadline for states to ratify the amendment. Only two Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, voted for the resolution.

Now, Ms. Gillibrand and Ms. Bush are trying a different approach: They are simply ignoring the issue of the expired ratification deadline altogether and introducing a resolution that argues that the E.R.A. is already the law of the land.

“This is an opportunity to start fresh with a legitimate legal theory that has basis in constitutional law,” Ms. Gillibrand said, noting that the reference to the deadline was in the preamble, not the text of the amendment itself. “I believe President Biden can just do this. I’m going to make the legal and political argument over the next several months that this is something he can do.”

Ms. Bush, a founder of the E.R.A. caucus in the House, said that “for us, it is already done. The E.R.A. is the 28th Amendment. We just need the archivist to publish it.”

At issue is the complex procedure for adding an amendment to the Constitution, which requires passage by both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states, in this case, within a seven-year deadline. Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972, and subsequently enacted a law extending that deadline to 10 years. But by 1982, only 35 states had ratified. Since then, three more states — Nevada, Illinois and Virginia — have ratified the amendment, surpassing the threshold, but some others have rescinded their ratifications.

That has left the amendment in a legal and political limbo, its fate left in the hands of Congress and the courts.

Russ Feingold, the former Wisconsin senator who serves as president of the American Constitution Society, said he supported the Democrats’ new strategy.

“For the institution that actually put this limitation of the deadline on to say, ‘Actually, it doesn’t matter’ really is significant,” Mr. Feingold said. “The White House and members of Congress are beginning to see that credible legal scholars are saying this is already part of the Constitution.”

There is nothing straightforward or clear about the constitutional amendment process, and legal experts said that each of the Constitution’s amendments has taken a unique path to ratification. The 27th Amendment, which states that members of Congress cannot raise or lower their salaries in the middle of their terms, languished for more than 200 years before it was ratified.

But Democrats are more eager than ever to make a new push for the amendment in the wake of the Dobbs decision. The key section of the amendment, with just 24 words, “is packed with potential to protect access to abortion care nationwide, defeat bans on gender-affirming health care, shore up marriage equality, eliminate the gender wage gap, help end the epidemic of violence against women and girls, and so much more,” Ms. Bush said. “We have to just keep pushing it. We can’t fall victim to the Republican agenda.”

Ms. Bush and other Democrats argue that the ability to control one’s reproductive system is essential to equality in the workplace and in public life.

Those arguments have carried the day in some states, where parties have used state-level Equal Rights Amendments to strike down restrictions on reproductive care.

In New Mexico, the state’s supreme court struck down a state law banning funding for abortion-related services, citing the state Equal Rights Amendment that “allows for equality of rights for persons regardless of sex.” In Pennsylvania, advocates and providers are suing the state for banning Medicaid funding for abortion, arguing that it is a violation of equal-protection provisions in the state constitution.

“In 2023, we should move forward to ratify the E.R.A. with all due haste because if you look at the terrible things happening to women’s rights in this country, it’s clear that we must act,” Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, said in April when the Senate first took up the issue.

But opponents of the measure have argued that the amendment is no longer valid because 38 states did not ratify the E.R.A. by the deadline. There is also the complex legal question of whether states that have since rescinded their ratifications should be counted.

 

 

[Martell Spy]

Lawyers with supreme court business paid Clarence Thomas aide via Venmo
Payments to Rajan Vasisht, an aide from 2019-21, underscore ties between the justice and lawyers who argue cases in front of him

Luxury trips and property deals: supreme court controversies

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/12/clarence-thomas-aide-venmo-payments-lawyers-supreme-court

Quote

 

Several lawyers who have had business before the supreme court, including one who successfully argued to end race-conscious admissions at universities, paid money to a top aide to Justice Clarence Thomas, according to the aide’s Venmo transactions. The payments appear to have been made in connection to Thomas’s 2019 Christmas party.

The payments to Rajan Vasisht, who served as Thomas’s aide from July 2019 to July 2021, seem to underscore the close ties between Thomas, who is embroiled in ethics scandals following a series of revelations about his relationship with a wealthy billionaire donor, and certain senior Washington lawyers who argue cases and have other business in front of the justice.

Vasisht’s Venmo account – which was public prior to requesting comment for this article and is no longer – show that he received seven payments in November and December 2019 from lawyers who previously served as Thomas legal clerks. The amount of the payments is not disclosed, but the purpose of each payment is listed as either “Christmas party”, “Thomas Christmas Party”, “CT Christmas Party” or “CT Xmas party”, in an apparent reference to the justice’s initials.

 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

I know the people involved are horrible, but I think the idea that the state can appeal a sentence on the grounds that it isn't long enough is terrible.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

I know the people involved are horrible, but I think the idea that the state can appeal a sentence on the grounds that it isn't long enough is terrible.  

Not when sedition is the crime, especially with such obvious actions. Rhodes deserves life without parole frankly, as does every coconspirator. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not when sedition is the crime, especially with such obvious actions. Rhodes deserves life without parole frankly, as does every coconspirator. 

Ok.  I strongly disagree.  

[JGP]

5 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Ok.  I strongly disagree.  

I'd be interested in hearing why, Larry. I mean, betraying your country, even if you mistakenly believed your country betrayed you, ought to be amongst the most serious of crimes, no? Thinking national impact here.

[Larry of the Lawn]

16 minutes ago, JGP said:

I'd be interested in hearing why, Larry. I mean, betraying your country, even if you mistakenly believed your country betrayed you, ought to be amongst the most serious of crimes, no? Thinking national impact here.

They asked for a 25 year sentence.  They got an 18 year sentence.  What's going to happen in those 7 years that matters one way or another?  18 years is a long-ass time.  It's the amount of time we've decided it takes for a person to become legally responsible for themself.  

I'd be interested in hearing why a 25 year sentence is better for the world than an 18 year one.  

Eta: if it's a deterrence issue, is a 25 year vs an 18 year sentence going to stop someone?  Are there things you would do knowing you'd be incarcerated for 18, but that you wouldn't if it was a 25 year sentence?

Edited July 13, 2023 by Larry of the Lake

[James Arryn]

Nah, I get Larry’s concern, the idea of retrofitting sentences w/o established error is one of those ideas that only sounds ok when it’s pointed at someone you disagree with. As a general practice I think this causes a lot more trouble than the difference in sentences will ever affect. I think the sentences should have been much higher too, but that was an error in judgment, not law so far as I understand it. 

[JGP]

@Larry of the Lake

Suspect because 18 isn't the max allowable at sentencing given severity of the crime[s].

If the max for the assortment of crimes these goofs had been convicted of was 18 but they got 11, there'd likely be the same amount of griefing about it.

Edited July 13, 2023 by JGP

[Larry of the Lawn]

8 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Nah, I get Larry’s concern, the idea of retrofitting sentences w/o established error is one of those ideas that only sounds ok when it’s pointed at someone you disagree with. As a general practice I think this causes a lot more trouble than the difference in sentences will ever affect. I think the sentences should have been much higher too, but that was an error in judgment, not law so far as I understand it. 

Yes, that was more or less what my original comment was about.  The thing about the 7 year difference is another topic, but yeah, the state already presented it's case, it got the conviction, the judge is given discretion in sentencing.  Probably a stretch but it kind of feels like asking for more time is a double jeopardy violation.  

[Larry of the Lawn]

11 minutes ago, JGP said:

@Larry of the Lake

Suspect because 18 isn't the max allowable at sentencing given severity of the crime[s].

If the max for the assortment of crimes these goofs had been convicted of was 18 but they got 11, there'd likely be the same amount of griefing about it.

Sorry for double post - if it's such a serious crime why is there a scale of available sentences?  If the issue is that it's not the maximum allowed by law then why even have a range for the judge to choose from?

[JGP]

Good questions. 

Some crimes shouldn't have a range [since you're asking me :p] 

We have the same issues up here in Canuckia.

[Jaxom 1974]

So when a defendant appeals.a sentence because they think they weren't punished too harshly, that's proper to let the appeal court say whether if the original sentence was correct, but the State making its case and thinking the sentence is lighter than what they thought it should be is terrible? If the Appeals Court agrees with the original sentence and the State tries to appeal things again after that, I'd agree with the point more...

[Zorral]

Doesn't the length of sentence have something to do with how soon one is eligible for parole hearings?  I don't know, which is why I am asking.

We all do recall those who conspired with Booth's assassination of Lincoln, including the woman, were hung? No years in prison, no parole.  Hung.  Executed for treason.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Zorral